As readers can see in posts below, Darcy Burner's "Truth Watch" is really a splendidly helpful tool. Even since this writer first posted on the matter, new "Claims" and corresponding rebuttals have been posted on immigration and border security. But, on the topic of taxes Burner's position remains foggy.
The entire "Truth Watch" discussion at Claim #3 really doesn't help the reader understand where Burner stands on all the Bush tax cuts, nor does the link provided at that page which is supposed to explain her thoughts further.
Maria Cantwell, to her credit and regardless of the validity of her position, has been clearer in at least saying she supports maintaining the child tax credit and the repeal of the marriage penalty. Where does Burner stand on such tax cuts?
One should quickly concede that virtually no Democrat running for Congress this year will come out in support of the 2003 tax cuts, primarily on dividends and capital gains. Economic conservatives will join the Larry Kudlow school of thought (articulated here and here) that the 2003 tax cuts have been a tremendous benefit to the economy and the federal Treasury (readers interested in more discussion of the former see this Heritage Foundation report, and on the later, see this recent news item which follows similar such stories from earlier this year of booming tax receipts). Yet, no Democrat can acquiesce to that important fact for reasons of politics and ideology - imagine the outcry from the liberal base if a Democrat in a contested election said "I support the Bush tax cuts for investors." Thus, the only question worth taking the breath to ask is where do Democrats stand on the child tax credit, the marriage penalty, and the income tax rate deductions that benefit lower-income taxpayers in particular?
Why is this relevant? If Democrats were to win the House, the incoming Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee has said he "' cannot think of one' of Bush's first-term tax cuts that merit renewal." Yikes. That means rolling back the child tax credit from $1,000 to $500 per child. That means bringing back the marriage penalty. That means bringing back higher income tax rates.
Lost in the hype of Democratic whining about tax cuts favoring the rich, even as upper-income taxpayers are paying the highest share of income taxes in decades, is that the 2001 Bush tax cuts substantively lowered federal income taxes for lower income taxpayers. Take a look at the handy tools at this site. Look at the tax brackets by level of income for 2006, then adjust them back to 2000. It's quite a difference.
For example, use the calculator farther down the page to estimate taxes for $30,000 in taxable income for a married family filing jointly. Their tax bill drops from $4,500 to $3,745 from 2000 to 2006, even before the increased child tax credit and/or other deductions and credits are included. That's real money in the hands of working families (fuller discussion of such beneficial impacts for lower-income taxpayers here).
So, where does Darcy Burner stand on these issues? Her own recent website discussion is decidedly unclear. Will she support the increased child tax credit, will she support continued repeal of the marriage penalty, will she support Bush income-tax rate reductions that benefit middle class families? That's a clear answer voters deserve.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 07, 2006 11:10 AM | Email ThisBURNER TOLD JOHN CARLSON ON HIS SHOW that she thought HER taxes were too low. You don't have to be too smart to figure out that she thinks a lot of people in her congressional district are also taxed too low. Well, forget THAT. We are paying TOO MUCH already and I will NOT vote for someone with that kind of slave-driver mentality. We deserve better than that!
Posted by: Michele on October 7, 2006 11:23 AMShe'll fit right into the Murray/Cantwell model of voting with the extreme left wherever necessary.
Posted by: MJC on October 7, 2006 12:39 PMMaybe these democrats would be willing to give back their massive pensions, massive health care program, and massive wages. No one else in America gets such massive benefits.
No I don't think they would be willing to do that.
Posted by: GS on October 7, 2006 01:07 PMIf the Dhimmicrats take control of the House we can expect 1) they'll spend all their time investigating the WH; 2) articles of impeachment against Dubya; 3) no legislation extending the tax cuts.
They're consumed by their hatred of the President, they'll do anything to gain power if for no other reason than making life miserable for the President. That's what we can expect from the Dems who are nothing more than a group of power hungry, mean, vindictive, spiteful, hate filled losers.
I noticed even Pelosi, did not mention defending this nation from terrorism anywhere on her list of to do's.
Posted by: GS on October 7, 2006 01:50 PM
GS, the Dhimmicrat's plan for the war on terror is to have the Miranda rights translated into Arabic, Farsi, Pashtun, and dozens of other languages and dialects, and issuing those booklets to every Solider, Sailor, Airman, and Marine for use on the battlefield.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 7, 2006 02:17 PMSounds huge but...
"As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, "a two-parent family of four with income of $26,000 would indeed have its income taxes eliminated under the Bush plan, which is being portrayed as a 100 percent reduction in taxes." But here was the punch line: The family owed only $20 in income taxes under the existing law. Its overall tax bill (including payroll and excise taxes), though, was $2,500. So that twenty bucks represented less than 1 percent of its tax burden. Bush's "greatest percentage" line was meaningless in the real world, where people paid their bills with money, not percentages."
Not that you care Michelle, but statements as well as statistics can be manipulated to state whatever you want it to.
My taxes have decreased dramatically since George Bush has been president, but mainly it is because shortly after he was elected, I was transferred from Chicago where they know how to get you coming, going and sideways.
Must have forgotten the $2,360 EITC your family would have qualified for.
Posted by: Ryan on October 7, 2006 05:08 PMPresident Bush DELIVERED. Way to go, W! We love it!
Posted by: Michele on October 7, 2006 07:01 PMHere is the description (PIA is Primary Insurance Amount):
"For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2006, or who dies in 2006 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of:
(a) 90 percent of the first $656 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus
(b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $656 and through $3,955, plus
(c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $3,955."
Note also the reference to "average indexed monthly earnings". The left complains that payroll taxes for OASDI (Social Security) only apply to earnings up to a certainly level (94,200 in 2006), but earnings beyond that level are also not included in average indexed monthly earnings, and so there are no benefits received on that income.
Bill H
Posted by Ryan at October 7, 2006 05:08 PM
So true Ryan.....I still cringe on april 15th. I write a check, and my (single) receptionist(w/3 kids)who:
works only PartTime
gets State Aid (Rent, food, medical, dental)
get free daycare (i paid hundreds/mo years ago)
And can eat t-bones 3 nights a week.
She pays in less than 200 per year, gets the 200 back, AND an extra $3,000. Now what is wrong with this picture. Ever notice in feb-march that they are sprouting something NEW. They plan vacations around their(My money) tax refunds.
What do they put back into the System. They don't own property, but they can vote to RESTRICT mine.
Sorry didnt mean to vent, but it just burns my arse.
Posted by: chris on October 8, 2006 09:55 AMYou got a much bigger tax cut, as a percentage of income, than a person in the middle class did. You ignore the amount of income that is actually taxable. The EITC is a much bigger break than Bush has provided for the middle class, whose burden from payroll taxes is much higher.
"I write a check, and my (single) receptionist(w/3 kids)who:
works only PartTime
gets State Aid (Rent, food, medical, dental)
get free daycare (i paid hundreds/mo years ago)
And can eat t-bones 3 nights a week.
She pays in less than 200 per year, gets the 200 back, AND an extra $3,000. Now what is wrong with this picture. Ever notice in feb-march that they are sprouting something NEW. They plan vacations around their(My money) tax refunds.
What do they put back into the System. They don't own property, but they can vote to RESTRICT mine."
Wow chris, what do they put back into the system? How about payroll taxes, gas tax, sales tax, property tax, although indirectly, in the form of higher rent, hard work for you, and three wonderful kids who make up the next generation of productive Americans?
Of course, if you're unhappy with the work she does you could always fire her- in which case she'd be collecting unemployment as well. Something tells me you don't pay her a small fortune, though, if she's getting back so much of "your property" in government aid. If you have a such a big problem with her being single, get off your ass and find her a sugar daddy.
Wanna be first in Line, Huh Daddy?
Where is the incentive for these people? Society gives and gives and gives, and what do we get back? We Get= People like you Ben.
She is paid well, but will never work full time until her children are grown. Most likely the cycle will repeat itself X 3. You see, she repeated the cycle from her mom. It is not the fault of the person recieving the benefits, it is societies expectation that we GIVE it too them. Not her fault really, she is just following a family tradition.
BTW I doubt she would consider you a Sugar Daddy, she is a pretty proud person.
How are you doing with your memory test Ben? did you recall the name of the Democratic PCO that was supporting Fred in the 41st with you? No I didn't think so.
Posted by: Huh? on October 8, 2006 03:44 PMYou seem to think she has it too easy. You describe her as a proud person, but then say she "expects" to receive those benefits. I doubt she sees being a single mother as an ideal position to be in, and I wouldn't presuppose she is not both a hard worker and a good mother, doing the best she can given her circumstances. Yet you assume she is in her current position because she has chosen to repeat a cycle of irresponsibility. I wonder, have you told her to her face that you think she is a leech? Shame on you.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on October 8, 2006 03:57 PMWhy yes I have Ben. We have had several conversations regarding her "Situation". I have on three different occasions offered her a full time position, and she turns me down everytime.
You see, she looks at it this way. WHY should she get out of the system, when everything is going WELL. She says most of her friends are right alongside of her. She knows that her (sp)promiscuous behavior led her to where she is today. 3 children, 3 different fathers, to which she didn't acknowlegde their paternity. So you see Ben, she really doesn't feel shame, because this has been a way of life for her since she was a child (except now they have a card instead of stamps). She said when she was in HS, she would be ashamed to be seen at safeway with her mom buying the groceries with food stamps, but now she just whips out the card, and nobody pays any attention.
So I don't have to beat her up on this, because she isn't doing anything wrong, just getting what she is entitled to.
Sad isn't it.
Posted by: Chris on October 8, 2006 04:27 PM